• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Refugees.

BrettNortje

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
793
Reaction score
22
Location
Cape Town
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One of the biggest problems with wars is the displacement of people, or, refugees. these people flee wars to get a better grip on life, and, they often find themselves in camps where they collect and seek refuge from the horrors of war.

Previously, i said they should sell their homes and be granted citizenship in certain areas with the money from their bank accounts and homes they sell. the problem is, their homes are probably in a shambles and it would take much effort to sell all their homes.

So, we need a new plan. if the refugees were to apply to the state for finances, they would drag the state they are in down. there is needs, but there is no way to satisfy these needs without welfare, it seems...

Maybe if the refugees were to begin subsistence farming for themselves, as, they can all surely plant seeds and pick fruit and vegetables, they could feed themselves shortly. all that would be required then is land.

If they were to be granted bricks and cement, they could build their own homes? there are no doubt some builders among them that can oversee this? they could help the people build their own houses.

So far, this new plan needs only seeds and building materials...

Then, they need hygiene. this could be sorted by making 'natural soaps' out of fat, where the fat they cut off at the abattoir could be donated to the welfare set up of volunteers to make them soaps. these volunteers could be jail house people if need be.

Now, they need water. if they were to settle near to rivers, they could have that need, maybe with a few chemicals thrown into the river to clean the water of excrement and other things? this is also cheap.

How about refuse removal? this would be a major problem, and, they could have it sought to by selling it as 'fertilizer.' there is much of this needed where the crops grow and where the livestock feed, mind you.

So, seeds, cheap building materials, fat, cheap chemicals and portable toilets.
 
Proverbially, no good deed goes unpunished. The best we have to offer thus far is, throw some money in their general direction and pass it off to the next generation to handle.

Although, if that Saudi bill remains law, it will be interesting to see how the international tribunal community receives international complaints in the matter of refugee crises. Trial lawyers probably fantasize about that kind of thing. Maybe they could sue for citizenship.
 
If we really want to help the refugees, they need "fishing rods, not fish." these could be old tools donated from an upgrade from the private sector helped along by the state - the state could bring taxes down on 'tools' for a week, and then see a flood of new purchases of 'tools' while the old ones are agreed to be donated to the new influx of people or refugees. the private sector would benefit from the latest machinery, and, the refugees would have a mean to generate an income, of course. the drop in taxes would see the flood of tools for a while, and this skimming of taxes from these purchases will boost the economy of the state, of course.

Then, they could do the same with building materials. this would see the same effect on housing as on tooling, of course. how about food stuffs? for the time between the subsistence farming and now, they could buy food en mass by lowering taxes for a period, with 'suppliers' agreeing to donate eighty percent of their gains over and above the line to the refugees?
 
How does decreasing state revenue increase the economy of the state? If spending stayed the same, wouldn't that increase the debt?
 
Maybe the best way to deal with refugees is to empower them to make their own markets inside 'the camps.' This would see them introduce a new currency where they spread it within the camps, and it will gain value the more it is used, or,

They could withdraw their own money from back home to use here? this would require a trip to the bank, but, maybe the public service sector could help over weekends? this would see them work, as i saw, in a jail on a movie. they would respect the money they withdraw in european and african currencies and then use it to buy themselves things for a while. if they do not have a identity book, they may be finger printed and have their identity revealed for issuing of a proper booklet.

This would see them gain a meager amount of capital. this would help them set up a 'combined business,' on the spanish model of some business i forgot about, but, it doesn't have an owner as such, if i remember correctly?

Or they could use the crowd funding model from start up dot com? what is it called... kick starter?
 
I was referring to taxation. Taxes are state revenue, I think exclusively in a capitalist society like ours.

It comes in bulk - if you lower taxes for a certain amount of time, it will up sales for that time so the state breaks even, yet the people prosper.
 
It comes in bulk - if you lower taxes for a certain amount of time, it will up sales for that time so the state breaks even, yet the people prosper.

There's no guarantee that people will be buying what you're selling. People are greedy - they love to sit on money and watch it grow. That doesn't make the state prosper and sometimes, when banks fail, the people don't prosper either.

I'm not buying the "what's good for business is good for the people" argument. It's idealistic at best, but has it worked in trickle down economics? I don't think so. Any example in international economics will do.
 
The most important thing for the refugees is their food supply. this needs to come from farms, of course, or imports. maybe the refugees could sell the food to the other refugees and get paid a few dollars for each amount they sell? this still means the refugees will need money though.

So, to get the refugees money, the state could organize for them jobs, or, more jobs. this could be where the refugees sell their most precious plentiful resource - time and energy - to the private and public sectors. this could see the refugees take on roles like police and social workers, employing about twenty percent of them. the rest could be employed to man markets for the people there, where the police and social workers buy gods from the markets that are there for sale. so far, about forty percent of them are employed, yes?

Then, some of the refugees could move into the city, becoming salesmen. these are now also european and african citizens, so, will have to pay taxes on the stuff they buy and sell, raising the income from taxation, of course.

Maybe some of them could become teachers and doctors - they all had jobs before they came, they all have some skill, so they should use it. maybe the public sector servicemen could come out to the camps and inquire about what they used to do, and have them prove it skimpily to them, then the banks could organize loans based on skills and a plan?
 
The refugees need immediate help, i am told. i hope i am the man for the job, as i wouldn't like to live like that either. there are some ghost towns in america that could house these people, and, if they were to be lifted there by ship, they could become citizens and contribute to a powerful economy. there are many ghost towns in europe too that could be occupied by them, with old machinery for immediate jobs, yes? i figure it is about a week by rails and ships, maybe shorter?
 
Somewhere down the line, an institution (such as shipping or real estate) will have to accommodate refugees at little to no cost. The fact is, many institutions cannot afford the exchange of humanitarian good will for resources or raw materials as you have suggested.

It's a great idea, but I fear it is too late for many refugees which are presently displaced. Hopefully future generations will be able to coexist with us regardless of their residential status. Isolationism will work to some degree, in certain circumstances, but now is not the time to protest against refugees crossing our borders.
 
I would direct them all to the UK where everything is free.
 
If the refugees need funding, there might be a way that the church can help? we always hear about the roman catholic church helping, so why doesn't the ayatollah of iran and others like him send them food aid? while this might work, it is not a charity we want to create, so, maybe not.

Why don't they dig mines? they could, if they are in a forested area, dig for all sorts of commodities? this would see them just dig a big hole, instead of being bored, of course. you never know what they might find, of course. but that is a dreamy idea, most of them will not find much.

If the refugees were to get fishing nets, they might be able to fish if they are on the coast or near a lake, alleviating some of pressure on the authorities to feed them.

If the authorities were to get all the 'confiscated' apple tablets, they could work in a commerce sort of venture. these tablets and phones can be used to do clerical work on, and, then they would be able to yield dividends for various companies at this festive time of buying, of course.

Then, there are other things that are being recalled - what will they do with them? if the community leaders were to sign forms, they would be able to reap in this lot of assets, and then use them to make money, of course.
 
There must be a way to get cheap medicine to the needy. if medicine is manufactured like food, then there must be waste. i know far a fact, as a medical recipient or person that uses pills that expire, and knowing they cannot keep an indefinite shelf life, they might get a tax deduction for early orders. this would be where they need to order more because the medicine is about to expire, and instead of throwing it away, they offer discount prices for medicine they need.

This would be where they are ordering a 'cocktail of drugs,' where the delivery costs mean they could get new stock and get it all together from one delivery if they order it all together, and, of course, save money this way. the state could buy the medicine at a agreed upon price, and then the medicine could be delivered. of course, there is also the fact that manufacturers make excess all the time, so, they could get a discount rate when, for example, tuberculosis is out of season, yes?

This endeavor could be made even more cost saving if they did it with whole malls at once. if they were to order from them and make known there is a market for one week to expiry medications, and clothing that will be burned or something, as the summer stock is coming in or whatever, then they could make deals this way too.
 
Maybe the best way to look at how the refugees can settle in and prosper is to observe the way other continents were colonized? when the europeans landed, they brought food and guns with them, and met up with tribes of indians and africans and chinese that that they found a plentiful source of food from, and that is how they managed to remain with the new continents and people they met.

As they settled in, they managed to build, somehow, things from home. all they had were saws, hammers and nails, building ports for themselves. then, they managed to chop wood for the buildings themselves. then, they managed to mine mountains, out of their own pocket, to get metal for steel, making many things that were rather raw by today's standards for themselves. so, they had what today the amish have.

So, maybe the best way to help them is to have them help themselves? maybe dumping a lot of building materials and things they will need will lead to a flourishing area economy one day, maybe even before christmas? they could, as they have found copper and metals, build smelters for themselves. they could just be given a plan or progression, get enough food and medicine and clothes, and then declare a profit when they start seeing one - i am sure they can be self reliant before christmas with the plans that have been carried out so far.

Then they will be full on citizens, and, be able to pay taxes. if they were to deal with the basic things that every community needs, like, for example, a printing press, they could use it or sell it, as, these big tools are always needed - with very little financial incentives profit wise, they are often overlooked, yes?
 
Maybe the best way to look at how the refugees can settle in and prosper is to observe the way other continents were colonized? when the europeans landed, they brought food and guns with them, and met up with tribes of indians and africans and chinese that that they found a plentiful source of food from, and that is how they managed to remain with the new continents and people they met.

As they settled in, they managed to build, somehow, things from home. all they had were saws, hammers and nails, building ports for themselves. then, they managed to chop wood for the buildings themselves. then, they managed to mine mountains, out of their own pocket, to get metal for steel, making many things that were rather raw by today's standards for themselves. so, they had what today the amish have.

So, maybe the best way to help them is to have them help themselves? maybe dumping a lot of building materials and things they will need will lead to a flourishing area economy one day, maybe even before christmas? they could, as they have found copper and metals, build smelters for themselves. they could just be given a plan or progression, get enough food and medicine and clothes, and then declare a profit when they start seeing one - i am sure they can be self reliant before christmas with the plans that have been carried out so far.

Then they will be full on citizens, and, be able to pay taxes. if they were to deal with the basic things that every community needs, like, for example, a printing press, they could use it or sell it, as, these big tools are always needed - with very little financial incentives profit wise, they are often overlooked, yes?

I wonder if Europeans would have been able to sustain themselves without the decimation of Native populations. The colonies did more than just live off the land. Even as nations with a common enemy, indigenous tribes played a role in repelling the British Army and French Army.

During the period of time when settlers from Europe first colonized the Americas, a few different nations were vying for power in various regions of the US which meant that the establishment of a nation required nearly perpetual war.

If we can compare the refugee crisis to perpetual war, what else can we compare to perpetual war?
 
Proverbially, no good deed goes unpunished. The best we have to offer thus far is, throw some money in their general direction and pass it off to the next generation to handle.

Although, if that Saudi bill remains law, it will be interesting to see how the international tribunal community receives international complaints in the matter of refugee crises. Trial lawyers probably fantasize about that kind of thing. Maybe they could sue for citizenship.

What is the international tribunal community? And whose complaints are they receiving?
 
Maybe the best way to look at how the refugees can settle in and prosper is to observe the way other continents were colonized? when the europeans landed, they brought food and guns with them, and met up with tribes of indians and africans and chinese that that they found a plentiful source of food from, and that is how they managed to remain with the new continents and people they met.

As they settled in, they managed to build, somehow, things from home. all they had were saws, hammers and nails, building ports for themselves. then, they managed to chop wood for the buildings themselves. then, they managed to mine mountains, out of their own pocket, to get metal for steel, making many things that were rather raw by today's standards for themselves. so, they had what today the amish have.

So, maybe the best way to help them is to have them help themselves? maybe dumping a lot of building materials and things they will need will lead to a flourishing area economy one day, maybe even before christmas? they could, as they have found copper and metals, build smelters for themselves. they could just be given a plan or progression, get enough food and medicine and clothes, and then declare a profit when they start seeing one - i am sure they can be self reliant before christmas with the plans that have been carried out so far.

Then they will be full on citizens, and, be able to pay taxes. if they were to deal with the basic things that every community needs, like, for example, a printing press, they could use it or sell it, as, these big tools are always needed - with very little financial incentives profit wise, they are often overlooked, yes?

What are you talking about? Refugees from Syria?
 
Did you ever think since most refugees are Islamic there could be a problem these people need to fix? I think they need to stay and make their countries livable.
 
What is the international tribunal community? And whose complaints are they receiving?

Here you go: The Court | International Court of Justice

Any case heard by one government whining about another government will do.

Do you think the governments of two distinct, sovereign nations will prefer global order to intervention on behalf of their respective citizens?
 
Here you go: The CourtÂ*|Â*International Court of Justice

Any case heard by one government whining about another government will do.

Do you think the governments of two distinct, sovereign nations will prefer global order to intervention on behalf of their respective citizens?

What?
The UN Court of Justice is the international tribunal community? I don't get it. And I really don't get... "sovereign nations will prefer global order to intervention on behalf of their respective citizens". What does intervention on behalf of their respective citizens mean? Intervention by whom?
 
What?
The UN Court of Justice is the international tribunal community? I don't get it. And I really don't get... "sovereign nations will prefer global order to intervention on behalf of their respective citizens". What does intervention on behalf of their respective citizens mean? Intervention by whom?

That's the first thing that came to mind. The only other tribunal community I can think of would be a collection of various justice systems in different countries.

I thought that we were talking about the refugee crisis, and the saudi bill. So intervention by the government of a nation in an international tribunal on behalf of the citizens of that particular nation is the idea I was attempting to convey.
 
That's the first thing that came to mind. The only other tribunal community I can think of would be a collection of various justice systems in different countries.

I thought that we were talking about the refugee crisis, and the saudi bill. So intervention by the government of a nation in an international tribunal on behalf of the citizens of that particular nation is the idea I was attempting to convey.

Sorry, I don't get the connections. By 'saudi bill', you mean the US government allowing a 9/11 widow to sue the Saudi kingdom, right? And by 'refugee crisis' you mean the hordes of people displaced by the Syrian war, right? And how does the UN court of justice enter the picture? Maybe I'm dense, but you'll have to be more specific if I'm to follow your reasoning.
 
Sorry, I don't get the connections. By 'saudi bill', you mean the US government allowing a 9/11 widow to sue the Saudi kingdom, right? And by 'refugee crisis' you mean the hordes of people displaced by the Syrian war, right? And how does the UN court of justice enter the picture? Maybe I'm dense, but you'll have to be more specific if I'm to follow your reasoning.

Saudi Arabia and Syria are two different sovereign nations, but it would appear that their governments are linked to the US government. Even if the Syrian government hasn't issued any kind of policy regarding refugees sent to the US, the US does have immigration reform on its hands. Likewise, Saudi Arabia and the US may be intimately linked if any of the lawsuits under the Saudi bill are taken to trial. How will the governments of these three nations interact in the broader arena of international politics? I claim that international tribunals will play a part in this, even though I do not know where any court will hear a lawsuit against the Saudi government. However, if I'm not mistaken, the Saudi bill permits only US citizens and not the US government to sue only the Saudi government and not Saudi citizens.

With respect to the international relationship between two other nations via the Saudi bill, how does the Syrian government (if such a thing can be said to exist) play a part in the international political landscape? In order to execute a plan of action in a civil manner, it is not unlikely that some form of a justice system will be applied via the international community. In other historical conflicts, the international community has made agreements like peace treaties, or ceasefires. The Saudi bill links two different nations via some form of a justice system.
 
Back
Top Bottom